My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-12-31_REPORT - M1988044
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Minerals
>
M1988044
>
2007-12-31_REPORT - M1988044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:20:26 PM
Creation date
1/4/2008 10:56:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988044
IBM Index Class Name
REPORT
Doc Date
12/31/2007
Doc Name
Annual Report
From
Southwestern Ecological Services
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Annual Fee/Report
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
exclosure closer to the adjacent wetland. They just weren't encountered in the sampling. The SSD <br />values show a rather large range in plant dimensions for both cottonwood and willow. <br />In comparing the 2006 results with the 2007 results it is apparent that there was some <br />increase in the number of woody plants, but that increase was actually fairly minor. Furthermore, <br />changes in density were fairly small with an upward trend as a result of more plants being found. It <br />appeazs that this exclosure is still gaining density while the very high 2006 densities in Exclosure 1 <br />showed a huge decline in 2007. Nevertheless, those density increases in Exclosure 2 aze actually <br />rather minor and would be expected in an area so severely impacted by grazing in the past. It is likely <br />that the lower density in 2006 was due to the effects of cattle prior to the fence construction. New <br />seedlings in the 2005-2006 year were probably destroyed before the fence was erected and it wasn't <br />unti12007 that replacements appeared. <br />Cover: Cover here is similar to that found in Exclosure 1, basically still less than 5%. The <br />two larger plants on transect 1 did produce a cover value slightly greater than 5%, but the woody <br />vegetation zone here was the distance between the two plants which was 42 feet on a 231 foot long <br />transect. Clearly, that 5.126% cover value is not very meaningful under those circumstances. If these <br />were full grown mature trees that cover value would be meaningful, but with young plants it means <br />little. The cover values for the other two transects is more meaningful and those are similar to the <br />values for Exclosure 1. Considering the vegetation in these two exclosures is young and about the <br />same age, such low and similar cover values are consistent with expectation. <br />TABLE 2: Exclosure Analysis Results for 2007 - Exclosure 2 (near large wetland) <br />parameter Transect 1 <br />(southern) Transect 2 <br />(middle) Transect 3 <br />(northern) All Transects All Woody <br />Plants <br />ttl transect ingth 231 feet 250 feet 259 feet 740 feet 740 feet <br />veg transect <br />ingth 41.5 feet 196.5 feet 197.5 feet 435.5 feet 435.5 feet <br />transect width 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet <br />ttl transect area 1386 sq ft 1500 sq ft 1554 sq ft 4440 sq ft 4440 sq ft <br />veg transect area 249 sq ft 1179 sq ft 1185 sq ft 2613 sq ft 2613 sq ft <br />2007 Annual Report Coal Creek Wetland Mitigation Permit DA 198811488 Page 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.